>>Charles, Tracy,
>>
>>I just read this review in today's paper. Sounds like if you enjoyed his other books you will probably enjoy this one. Personally I am not a fan of extensive anonymous quotations but it looks like they are here to stay.
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/books/23book.html?_r=1&ref=books
>
>But you didn't have a problem with the extensive anonymous quotations in "Runaway General" in Rolling Stone?
>
>Have you read Woodward's other books?

See my reply to Tracy about his other books.

Funny you mention the Rolling Stone article. The Army just released its report on the controversy. MacCrystal resigned and left the Army, and it sounds like they just want to wrap it up and move on, but two of his subordinates are up for promotions and they want some sort of official finding to guide those one way or the other. It does sound like some of the more controversial quotes are disputed and may have been said by others. IMO acting to subvert President Obama's desire to scale back Afghanistan, trying to scale it up instead, was insubordination. Along with the Pat Tillman coverup I think the President was justified in firing him. Like him or not, the President is the Commander in Chief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/books/23book.html?_r=1&ref=books

In answer to your question, no, I don't have any less of a problem with the anonymous quotations in the Rolling Stone article. Ideally every quote would be sourced by name. Otherwise you are open to people with agendas and ill wishes hiding behind anonymity. Unfortunately now that the cat is out of the bag a lot of sources won't talk to the reporter unless granted anonymity. Woodward, of course, gave us probably the most famous anonymous source in history, Deep Throat.